All is Change



Life                           -                      Death
Solid                         -                      Liquid
Certain                      -                      Uncertain
Stasis                         -                      Motion
Abstract                     -                      Concrete
Order                         -                      Chaos
Coherent                   -                       Random
Explicate                   -                       Implicate




No matter where I went, or what I did: there it was, always, beneath everything: that constant 'drip, drip, drip' ...




No permanence is ours; we are a wave
That flows to fit whatever form it finds:
Through day or night, cathedral or the cave
We pass forever, craving form that binds

Mold after mold we fill and never rest,
We find no home where joy or grief runs deep.
We move, we are the everlasting guest.
No field nor plow is ours; we do not reap.

What God would make of us remains unknown:
He plays; we are the clay to his desire.
Plastic and mute, we neither laugh nor groan;
He kneads, but never gives us to the fire.

To stiffen into stone, to persevere!
We long forever for the right to stay.
But all that ever stays with us is fear,
And we shall never rest upon our way.

[Hermann Hesse]
'Lament', The Glass Bead Game, p. 429




In the process of constructing this blog, I’ve often found it difficult to work out where one post ends and another begins. 

Whilst they may appear to be separate islands, it is often the case that they merge into one another. I imagine, although I’ve yet to test it, that you could hop from one to another using the ‘Related posts” feature, and touch upon every post on the site.

Sometimes creating individual posts - about this thing or that thing - is like sitting on a beach and making sandcastles. One here, and one there. From the unity of ‘sand’, to the multiplicity of 'sandcastles'.

But once the tide comes in my creations will soon return to their original unity, reminding me that their separateness was only a momentary daydream.

(Hopefully this site has a while before the tide comes in). 




Man considering the Universe, of which he is a unit, sees nothing but change in matter, forces, and mental states. He sees that nothing really is, but that everything is becoming and changing.

Nothing stands still - everything is being born, growing, dying - the very instant a thing reaches its height, it begins to decline - the law of rhythm is in constant operation - there is no reality, enduring quality, fixity, or substantiality in anything - nothing is permanent but Change.

He sees all things evolving from other things, and resolving into other things - a constant action and reaction; inflow and outflow; building up and tearing down; creation and destruction; birth, growth and death.

Nothing endures but Change.

The Kybalion, Chapter IV: "The All"






Under any hypothesis the Universe in its outer aspect is changing, ever-flowing, and transitory — and therefore devoid of substantiality and reality.

But (note the other pole of the truth) under any of the same hypotheses, we are compelled to act and live as if the fleeting things were real and substantial.

The Kybalion, Chapter VI: "The Divine Paradox"




Eternal becoming, endless flux, belong to the revelation of the essential nature of the will.

Finally the same thing is also seen in human endeavors and desires that buoy us up with the vain hope that their fulfilment is always the final goal of willing. But as soon as they are attained, they no longer look the same, and so are soon forgotten, become antiquated, and are really, although not admittedly, always laid aside as vanished illusions.

It is fortunate enough when something to desire and to strive for still remains, so that the game may be kept up of the constant transition from desire to satisfaction, and from that to a fresh desire, the rapid course of which is called happiness, the slow course sorrow, and so that this game may not come to a standstill, showing itself as a fearful, life-destroying boredom, a lifeless longing without a definite object, a deadening languor.

[Arthur Schopenhauer]
The World as Will and Representation, p.164




[...] the steady state and continued existence of complex interactive systems depend upon preventing the maximization of any variable, and [...] any continued increase in any variable will inevitably result in, and be limited by, irreversible changes in the system.

[...] in such systems it is very important to permit certain variables to alter. The steady state of an engine with a governor is unlikely to be maintained if the position of the balls of the governor is clamped. Similarly a tightrope walker with a balancing pole will not be able to maintain his balance except by varying the forces which he exerts upon the pole.

[...] In sum it seems that the Balinese extend to human relationships attitudes based upon bodily balance, and that they generalize the idea that motion is essential to balance.

This last point gives us, I believe, a partial answer to the question of why the society not only continues to function but functions rapidly and busily, continually undertaking ceremonial and artistic tasks which are not economically or competitively determined.

This steady state is maintained by continual nonprogressive change.

[Gregory Bateson]
Steps to an Ecology of Mind ('Bali: The Value System of a Steady State'), p.124-5




The universe is like a swimming pool full of lego bricks.

When an idea is thought of, it is created: built from bricks. In time it is demolished and become bricks again.

But the bricks always remain.

If you had the right view, then you would see that the bricks themselves are also breaking down into smaller bricks. Breaking down and reforming.

The bricks are like a soil, from which everything grows.

The pool is infinite.





 Alas - but also be glad of it - pattern and/or information is all too easily eaten up by the random. The messages and guidelines for order exist, as it were, in sand or are written on the surface of waters.

Almost any disturbance, even mere Brownian movement, will destroy them. Information can be forgotten or blurred. The code books can be lost.

[Gregory Bateson]
Mind and Nature, p. 56






Every condition [...] is only a particular step in the attainment of inward and outward perfection, and therefore has no significance of itself.

Blessedness consists in progress towards perfection; to stand still in any condition whatever mean the cessation of this blessedness.

[Leo Tolstoy]
The Kingdom of God is Within You, p. 46



Nothing in the visible universe of motion can ever become still. The very fact that you can see it means that it is in motion. Otherwise you could not see it.

[Walter Russell]
The Message of the Divine Iliad, vol. II, p. 79




The Taoists believe that the world is always an interplay between chaos and order and that if you live your life properly you stand with one foot in order and one foot in chaos. 

Because if you’re only in order, nothing that’s interesting ever happens to you. Nothing is anything but a repeat of all the things that you already know. That’s the state that Fascists desire because Fascists desire things to be exactly the way they are forever.

And if you’re in a state that’s only characterized by chaos you’re at sea or overwhelmed or things have fallen apart on you and there’s too much of everything for you to deal with.

[Jordan Peterson]
'Reality and the Sacred'




The idea wants changelessness and eternity.

Whoever lives under the supremacy of the idea strives for permanence; hence everything that pushes toward change must be opposed to the idea.

"[Sensation] can only say: this is true for this subject and at this moment; another moment another subject may come and revoke the statement of the present sensation."

[C. J. Jung, and Friedrich Schiller (in quotes)]
Psychological Types, p.97




Piaget noted that reality is a dynamic system of continuous change and, as such, is defined in reference to the two conditions that define dynamic systems. Specifically, he argued that reality involves transformations and states.

Transformations refer to all manners of changes that a thing or person can undergo. States refer to the conditions or the appearances in which things or persons can be found between transformations.

Thus, Piaget argued, if human intelligence is to be adaptive, it must have functions to represent both the transformational and the static aspects of reality. He proposed that operative intelligence is responsible for the representation and manipulation of the dynamic or transformational aspects of reality, and that figurative intelligence is responsible for the representation of the static aspects of reality.

Operative intelligence is the active aspect of intelligence. It involves all actions, overt or covert, undertaken in order to follow, recover, or anticipate the transformations of the objects or persons of interest.  

Figurative intelligence is the more or less static aspect of intelligence, involving all means of representation used to retain in mind the states (i.e., successive forms, shapes, or locations) that intervene between transformations. That is, it involves perception, imitation, mental imagery, drawing, and language.

Therefore, the figurative aspects of intelligence derive their meaning from the operative aspects of intelligence, because states cannot exist independently of the transformations that interconnect them.

Piaget stated that the figurative or the representational aspects of intelligence are subservient to its operative and dynamic aspects, and therefore, that understanding essentially derives from the operative aspect of intelligence.

'Piaget's theory of cognitive development'




Hypokeimenon, later often material substratum, is a term in metaphysics which literally means the "underlying thing".

To search for the hypokeimenon is to search for that substance which persists in a thing going through change—its basic essence.

Locke theorised that when all sensible properties were abstracted away from an object, such as its colour, weight, density or taste, there would still be something left to which the properties had adhered—something which allowed the object to exist independently of the sensible properties that it manifested in the beholder.

'Hypokeimenon'




In order to convey some of the flavor of Bohm's ideas I have called upon images and metaphors that are somewhat static. But Bohm's notions are all about process, or the holomovement; that is, the movement of the whole.

For Bohm, the ground (if we wish to call it that) or "all that is" takes the form of ceaseless movement. Within this movement can be discovered an endless process of unfolding and enfolding as the implicate order temporarily exposes aspects of itself to the explicate.

The fact that our world appears stable is not so much that objects remain static in our world, but that the same patterns are constantly being born again only to die away as fast as thought. Our minds and bodies encounter the surface of things, and of the apparent stability of the explicate, without being truly aware of the constant movement below.

[...] An elementary particle is not so much an object but a process. It is a constant process of becoming and dying away, a process in which the "particle" unfolds from the whole of space into a tiny region and then enfolds back again over all space.

[F. David Peat]
From Certainty to Uncertainty, p. 64-5




The total character of the world, however, is in all eternity chaos—in the sense not of a lack of necessity but of a lack of order, arrangement, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever other names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms. 

Judged from the point of view of our reason, unsuccessful attempts are by all odds the rule, the exceptions are not the secret aim, and the whole musical box repeats eternally its tune which may never be called a melody-and ultimately even the phrase "unsuccessful attempt" is too anthropomorphic and reproachful. 

But how could we reproach or praise the universe? Let us beware of attributing to it heartlessness and unreason or their opposites: it is neither perfect nor beautiful, nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man. 

[Friedrich Nietzsche]
The Gay Science, 109




Peirce laughed at the “sheep & goat separators” who split the world into true and false. Rather, he held that all that exists is continuous, and such continuums govern knowledge. 

For instance, size is a continuum, as [the Sorites paradox] shows. Time is a continuum, so though an acorn eventually becomes an oak tree, no one can say exactly when. Speed and weight form spectrums, as do effort, distance, and intensities of all sorts. Politeness, anger, joy, and other feelings and behaviours come in continuums. Consciousness itself is a continuum, varying not only in a single person, from high alertness through coma, but also across species, from humans to protozoans. 

Hence Peirce asserted that vagueness is a ubiquitous presence and not a mark of faulty thinking. Words do not suddenly cease pertaining at points on the spectrum, but rather shade away. This kind of uncertainty will always afflict us. “Vagueness,” he noted, “is no more to be done away with in the world of logic than friction in mechanics.”

[Daniel McNeill & Paul Freiberger]
Fuzzy Logic, p.28



The Principle of Polarity

................................................................................................................................................................................


There is no consciousness without discrimination of opposites [...] Nothing can exist without its opposite; the two were one in the beginning and will be one again in the end.

[C. G. Jung]
Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (CW 9), par. 178


................................................................................................................................................................................



"Everything is Dual, everything has poles; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."

This Principle embodies the truth that "everything is dual"; "everything has two poles"; "everything has its pair of opposites," all of which were old Hermetic axioms.

It explains the old paradoxes, that have perplexed so many, which have been stated as follows: "Thesis and anti-thesis are identical in nature, but different in degree"; "opposites are the same, differing only in degree"; "the pairs of opposites may be reconciled"; "extremes meet"; "everything is and isn't, at the same time"; "all truths are but half-truths"; "every truth is half-false"; "there are two sides to everything," etc., etc., etc.

It explains that in everything there are two poles, or opposite aspects, and that "opposites" are really only the two extremes of the same thing, with many varying degrees between them.

To illustrate: Heat and Cold, although "opposites," are really the same thing, the differences consisting merely of degrees of the same thing. Look at your thermometer and see if you can discover where "heat" terminates and "cold" begins! There is no such thing as "absolute heat" or "absolute cold" — the two terms "heat" and "cold" simply indicate varying degrees of the same thing, and that "same thing" which manifests as "heat" and "cold" is merely a form, variety, and rate of Vibration.

The Kybalion, Chapter 2: "The Seven Hermetic Principles"

................................................................................................................................................................................


They drew special attention to the fact that polarity, that is to say, the sundering of a force into two qualitatively different and opposite activities striving for reunion, a sundering which also frequently reveals itself spatially by a dispersion in opposite directions, is a fundamental type of almost all the phenomena of nature, from the magnet and the crystal up to man.

Yet in China this knowledge has been current since the earliest times in the doctrine of Yin and Yang.

[Arthur Schopenhauer]
The World as Will and Representation, p.143-4


................................................................................................................................................................................


All movement is defined in terms of an oscillation between two opposite polarities.

Implicit in the idea of oscillation, however, is the related concept of differences.

Differences convey information to an observer and therefore provide the basis for a response.

Without differences between structures, and between states of being, there would be nothing to perceive, nothing to respond to, and therefore no movement or evolution.

[Tony Plummer]
The Law of Vibration, p. 17

................................................................................................................................................................................


A signal is digital if there is discontinuity between it and alternative signals from which it must be distinguished. Yes and no are examples of digital signals.

In contrast, when a magnitude or quantity in the signal is used to represent a continuously variable quantity in the referrent, the signal is said to be analogic.

Numbers are the product of counting. Quantities are the product of measurement.

This means that numbers can conceivably be accurate because there is a discontinuity between each integer and the next. Between two and three, there is a jump.

In the case of quantity, there is no such jump; and because jump is missing in the world of quantity, it is impossible for any quantity to be exact. You can have exactly three tomatoes. You can never have exactly three gallons of water. Always quantity is approximate.

In other words, number is of the world of pattern, gestalt, and digital computation; quantity is of the world of analogic and probabalistic computation.

[Gregory Bateson]
Mind and Nature, p. 59, 241

Number = can be exact = separate = heaven
Quantity = can't be exact = connected = earth


................................................................................................................................................................................


[...] Gestalt theory recognizes that all choices exist on a continuum between one extreme and another (authoritarian or collegial, open-minded or closed-minded) and represent a decision, however unconscious, to position oneself nearer to one pole than to the other. This is what is meant by polar differentiation: seeing options on the continuum between poles.

[...] all meaning manifests through the creation and dissolution of polarities.

"In order for a phenomenon to be perceptible and appreciable, it must stand for the opposite of something else; it must be different from some other thing. This distinction constitutes, in the most elementary way, the figures of the world, the forms of phenomena. The elementary principle of creation that structures this distinction of phenomena is that of polarities, the original opposite."

The individual is himself or herself "a never-ending sequence of polarities. Whenever an individual recognises one aspect of him [or her] self, the presence of the antithesis, or polar quality, is implicit."

Because the pairs of opposites (polarities) are actually extremes on the same continuum of possibilities, the nearer one gets to the mid-point of the continuum, the more difficult it is to differentiate one pole from another.

Friedlaender calls this midpoint the point of "indifference." It is at this point – the point at which the full continuum of possibilities is fully known -- that creativity becomes possible and where the polarity dissolves or, if you prefer, transforms into a higher order of understanding.

[Herb Stevenson]
'Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change'


................................................................................................................................................................................



Polarity creates moving body forms in pairs of opposites, and places the opposite of each pair on opposite sides of a mutual equator. It likewise makes each mate so dependent on the other that neither could survive without constant interchange.

No living body could survive without receiving its inward breath from its spatial counterpart, nor could the spatial mate survive without the outbreathing of its opposite body to recharge it.

[Walter Russell]
A New Concept of the Universe, p. 80


................................................................................................................................................................................


[...] each value complex's need for both 'challenge and support,' as illuminated by the insights of polarity theory, is best fulfilled by a form of opposition that recognizes its own inherent interdependency with the political counterpart it seeks to moderate.

In other words, the ability to influence and potentially persuade a given political constituency is almost always tied to an acknowledged degree of sympathy for that constituency's positions.

Stated yet another way, the partisans of any given position are far more likely to listen to and respect the opinion of opponents who are willing to affirm at least some of the strengths of their position.

[Steve McIntosh]
'Overcoming Polarization by Evolving Both Right and Left'


................................................................................................................................................................................


What all these point to is the fundamentally divided nature of mental experience.

When one puts that together with the fact that the brain is divided into two relatively independent chunks which just happen broadly to mirror the very dichotomies that are being pointed to – alienation versus engagement, abstraction versus incarnation, the categorical versus the unique, the general versus the particular, the part versus the whole, and so on – it seems like a metaphor that might have some literal truth.

But if it turns out to be ‘just’ a metaphor, I will be content. I have a high regard for metaphor. It is how we come to understand the world.

[Iain McGilchrist]
The Master and His Emissary, p. 462


................................................................................................................................................................................


It has long been argued that the wisest crowds are the most diverse [...] in a theoretical model of group decision-making, a diverse group of problem-solvers made a better collective guess than that produced by the group of best-performing solvers. In other words, diverse minds do better, when their decisions are averaged, than expert minds.

Could there also be ways to make an existing crowd wiser?

Previous work might imply that you should add random individuals whose decisions are unrelated to those of existing group members. That would be good, but it’s better still to add individuals who aren’t simply independent thinkers but whose views are ‘negatively correlated’ – as different as possible – from the existing members. In other words, diversity trumps independence.

If you want accuracy, then, add those who might disagree strongly with your group. 

[Philip Ball]
'‘Wisdom of the crowd’: The myths and realities'


................................................................................................................................................................................


The polarity Big-Small is the first in the inventory of existential oppositions such as Male and Female, Ruler and Ruled, Owner and Owned, Light Skin and Dark, over all of which emancipatory struggles are now raging both politically and psychologically.

The aim of these struggles is the recognition of the divided function of partners who are equal not because they are essentially alike, but because in their very uniqueness they are both essential to a common function.

Exploitation exists where a divided function is misused by one of the partners involved in such a way that for the sake of his pseudo-aggrandizement he deprives the other partner of whatever sense of identity he had achieved, of whatever integrity he had approached.

The loss of mutuality which characterizes such exploitation eventually destroys the common function and the exploiter himself.

[Erik H. Erikson]
Childhood and Society, p. 376-7


................................................................................................................................................................................


Related posts:-
Shades of gray
In-between
Joining the dots
Everything is connected
Exclusion
Boxed off
A Difference that makes a Difference
This, Not That 
Assuming a position
All is Change
The Colour Wheel
The Eternal Ideas 
Giving and Receiving 
The Middle Path 
Balance 
Life and Death (and everything in between)  

You or The Work

................................................................................................................................................................................

Individual                       -                      Collective
Part                                 -                       Whole

................................................................................................................................................................................

The cells work together to form a tissue.
The tissues work together to form an organ.
The organs work together to form an organ system.

Each individual works in service to a higher truth, and contributes towards the ongoing existence of the plant (the whole).

................................................................................................................................................................................



I say to you, this morning, that if you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you will die for it, then you aren’t fit to live.

You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day, some great opportunity stands before you and calls upon you to stand up for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause. And you refuse to do it because you are afraid.

You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. You’re afraid that you will lose your job, or you are afraid that you will be criticized or that you will lose your popularity, or you’re afraid that somebody will stab or shoot or bomb your house. So you refuse to take a stand.

Well, you may go on and live until you are ninety, but you are just as dead at 38 as you would be at ninety. And the cessation of breathing in your life is but the belated announcement of an earlier death of the spirit.

You died when you refused to stand up for right. You died when you refused to stand up for truth. You died when you refused to stand up for justice.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
From the sermon “But, If Not” delivered at Ebenezer Baptist Church on November 5, 1967. Found in The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.344

................................................................................................................................................................................

When I first took my position against the war in Vietnam, almost every newspaper in the country criticized me. It was a low period in my life. I could hardly open a newspaper.

[...] But then I remember a newsman coming to me one day and saying, "Dr. King, don't you think you're going to have to change your position now because so many people are criticizing you? And people who once had respect for you are going to lose respect for you. And you're going to hurt the budget, I understand, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference; people have cut off support. And don't you think that you have to move now more in line with the administration's policy?"

That was a good question, because he was asking me the question of whether I was going to think about what happens to me or what happens to truth and justice in this situation.

On some positions, Cowardice asks the question, "Is it safe?" Expediency asks the question, "Is it politic?" And Vanity comes along and asks the question, "Is it popular?" But Conscience asks the question, "Is it right?" And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must do it because Conscience tells him it is right.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.342

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] when I took up the cross I recognized its meaning. It is not something that you merely put your hands on. It is not something that you wear. The cross is something that you bear and ultimately that you die on.

The cross may mean the death of your popularity [...] It may mean the death of a foundation grant. It may cut your budget down a little, but take up your cross and just bear it.

[Martin Luther King, Jr.]
The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr., p.343

................................................................................................................................................................................

DANIELS: Anything you want to tell me? Been weeks, now. The deputy ops knows what's going on in this unit almost before I do. Except last week, we run the bug up into Barksdale's club office and Burrell... For once, he's a step behind. You see it?

CARVER: Maybe, he...

DANIELS: I see it. I look around the office and I see that one of my people is at the academy for in-service.

CARVER: Lieutenant, I swear, it wasn't my idea. I mean, I'm minding my business, doin' my fuckin' job, when the man calls me upstairs for coffee and a danish, right? I mean, I never even been on the eighth floor of that fucking building. And there's the deputy fucking ops telling me how concerned he is about the case, how he needs to be informed. I mean, he's the deputy fucking ops, man.

DANIELS: Couple weeks from now, you're gonna be in some district somewhere with 11 or 12 uniforms looking to you for everything. And some of them are gonna be good police. Some of them are gonna be young and stupid. A few are gonna be pieces of shit. But all of them will take their cue from you. You show loyalty, they learn loyalty. You show them it's about the work, it'll be about the work. You show them some other kinda game, then that's the game they'll play. I came on in the Eastern, and there was a piece-of-shit lieutenant hoping to be a captain, piece-of-shit sergeants hoping to be lieutenants. Pretty soon we had piece-of-shit patrolmen trying to figure the job for themselves. And some of what happens then is hard as hell to live down.

Comes a day you're gonna have to decide whether it's about you or about the work.

Dialogue from The Wire, Episode 13, Season 1

................................................................................................................................................................................

Pearlman: The point is that Maury Levy is a past officer of the Monumental Bar Association, and unless I want to spend my whole life as a fucking A.S.A. I can't spend my afternoons pissing on people who matter.

McNulty: Another career in the balance.

Pearlman: Fuck You

McNulty: No, fuck you. If only half you motherfuckers in the State's Attorneys Office didn't want to be Judges, didn't want to be partners in some down-town law firm; if half of you had the fucking balls to follow through - you know what would happen? A guy like that would be indicted, tried, and convicted. And the rest of them would back up enough so that we could push a clean case or two through your courthouse. But no - everybody stays friends, everybody gets paid, and everybody's got a fucking future.

Dialogue from The Wire, Episode 11, Season 1

................................................................................................................................................................................

And, inside the organisation, you challenge that collective view at your peril. In today’s BBC only those whose antennae are fully attuned to the corporation’s cultural mindset — or keep quiet about their true feelings — are going to make progress.

Moreover, making progress these days doesn’t mean just achieving the influence and prestige of a senior job with the world’s greatest broadcaster, once considered reward enough. For those breaking through into the senior ranks, there’s now big, big money and a gold-plated pension to be had.

Which is why, although there has been plenty of grumbling on the shop floor about the escalation of pay for top BBC managers in recent years, it’s muted. No one wants to wreck his or her chances of a well-paid place in the promised land. The newsroom has many talented journalists of middle rank, who know what’s wrong with the organisation, but who don’t rock the boat for fear of blowing their futures.

[...] What the BBC wants you, the public, to believe is that it has ‘independence’ woven into its fabric, running through its veins and concreted into its foundations. The reality, I discovered, was that for the BBC, independence is not a banner it carries ­principally on behalf of the listener or viewer.

Rather, it is the name it gives to its ability to act at all times in its own best interests.

[Peter Sissons]
"Left-wing bias? It's written through the BBC's very DNA, says Peter Sissons", from Daily Mail Online.

................................................................................................................................................................................

Tell me the truth, Frank.

Remember that? We used to live by it. And you know what's so good about the truth? Everyone knows what it is, however long they've lived without it.

No one forgets the truth, Frank. They just get better at lying.

['April']
Dialogue from Revolutionary Road (film)

................................................................................................................................................................................

[...] I might say that no time can be more unfavourable to philosophy than that in which it is shamefully misused as a political means on the one hand, and as a means of livelihood on the other.

Now, if governments make philosophy the means to their political ends, then scholars see in professorships of philosophy a trade that nourishes the outer man just as does any other. They therefore crowd after them in the assurance of their good way of thinking, in other words, of the purpose or intention to serve those ends.

And they keep their word; not truth, not clarity, not Plato or Aristotle, but the aims and ends they were appointed to serve are their guiding star; and these at once become the criterion both of what is true, valuable, and worthy of consideration, and of its opposite.

Therefore whatever does not comply with these aims, be it even the most important and extraordinary thing in their department, is either condemned, or, where this seems precarious, suppressed by being unanimously ignored.

[...] How could philosophy, degraded to become a means of earning one's bread, generally fail to degenerate into sophistry? Just because this is bound to happen, and the rule "I sing the song of him whose bread I eat" has held good at all times, the making of money by philosophy was among the ancients the characteristic of the sophist.

[Arthur Schopenhauer]
The World as Will and Representation, p.xix, xx

................................................................................................................................................................................


"Mr Plichta, I have been in touch with Mr Mössbauer and told him that the two of us wanted to introduce him to something new, and that there was some need for caution in this regard. He wanted to know whether your discovery would raise doubts about quantum mechanics.

I told him that quantum mechanics would not even exist if what you discovered turned out to be true. Quantum mechanics would then simply turn out to be a figment of the imagination.

My colleague Mössbauer then got very angry and accused me of putting everything we have accomplished at risk. 

Our great achievement, modern physics, was the result of tremendous efforts, and now everything would collapse should any doubts arise.

Such people as yourself should not be given support under any circumstances. He refuses to meet you. He does not even want to hear of any of the new ideas. He gave me a very serious warning indeed"

[Peter Plichta]
God's Secret Formula
 
................................................................................................................................................................................


I don't care if my house is built on shaky foundations.

I have invested a lot of time and money in building it, and I am very comfortable living within it. I do not even want to hear your thoughts about its foundations.


................................................................................................................................................................................

Related posts:-
Vessel and Cargo | 3. Fetishism and Commerce
Sell Out
Open Source
Structural Integrity
High Stakes
The Mature Individual
Go Your Own Way
[Anonymous]
Only Playing
A Higher Power
Individual + Villager = Balance
The Role of Charities
A Healthy Body 

Learning For Their World

Superintendent: You're not educating them, you're ... socializing them?

Parenti: They weren't being educated before, there's no point in being obtuse!

Superintendent: Excuse me!

Colvin: Hold on. Hold on. Look, what he's saying is this ... I mean, you put a textbook in front of these kids; put a problem on a blackboard; teach 'em every problem on some State-wide test - it won't matter, none of it. Cos they not learnin' for our world, they learnin' for theirs. And they know exactly what it is they're training for, and what it is everyone expects them to be.

Superintendent: I expect them to be students.

Colvin: But it's not about you or us, or the tests or the system: it's what they expect of themselves. I mean every single one of them know they headed back to the corners, their brothers and sisters - shit, their parents - they came through these same classrooms, didn't they? We pretended to teach them, they pretended to learn, and where they end up? Same damn corners. I mean, they not fools, these kids. They don't know our world, but they know their own. I mean, Jesus, they ... they see right through us.

[...] We can't lie ... not to them.

Dialogue from The Wire, Episode 4, Season 4